For Peirce, there is a very big difference between what exists and what is real. — Mapping the Medium

Can you elaborate? I'm not very familiar with Pierce's writing. What little I've tried to read is way over my head. But I too, make a distinction between "what exists" and "what is physically real". For example, mental Abstractions are a prominent component of human experience, even though they have no physical instances. In what sense do they exist? :smile:

What’s with this fascination I read so often of reference to brain size being so BIG?! — JackBRotten

Note that I mentioned both our Brain Size (quantity) and our Brain Complexity (quality) as partial explanations for human dominance in the world. If you think ants are a dominant species, they don't even come close to the overwhelming numerical superiority and habitat ubiquity of single-cell organisms. But then, we have antibiotics and vaccines that help to even the score. :joke:
"A bigger brain is a Quantitative edge in processing power. But a rational mind seems to give humans a Qualitative superiority."

What does prejudice have to do with our nature? — Athena

The tendency to prejudge individuals and groups seems to be innate for humans, in part because quick categorizations proved advantageous for survival during Mammal evolution. But our advanced cognitive powers also allow us to quickly learn from our peers, who is to be trusted, and who is to be avoided. So human prejudice is both Innate and Learned. As for your other questions, read the book. :smile:

Humans are wired for prejudice : https://theconversation.com/humans-are-wired-for-prejudice-but-that-doesnt-have-to-be-the-end-of-the-story-36829

Innate or Learned Prejudice : https://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/fall-2015-questions-race/innate-or-learned-prejudice-turns-out-even-blind-arent

Just curious, what does "nominalist" even mean to you? You don't seem to use it in its usual meaning, but more like "CENSORED." — SophistiCat

The founders of modern materialistic Science deliberately limited their investigations to Specific and Reductive elements of reality. In doing so, they abandoned Universals and Wholes to "feckless" philosophers, who deign to dabble in Metaphysics (First Philosophy). From the nominalist perspective, the human Mind is just a name for brain-work. And that's OK, if you are studying Physiology, but not if you study Psychology or Ontology.

So a "nominalist philosopher" seems to be a misnomer, doing non-empirical word-processing instead of Hard Science. They appear to be motivated by "physics envy" in their search for particular Knowledge instead of universal Wisdom. They speak of Time & Space as-if they are real things, instead of just names for general concepts. :cool:


Nominalism : the doctrine that universals or general ideas are mere names without any corresponding reality, and that only particular objects exist; properties, numbers, and sets are thought of as merely features of the way of considering the things that exist. Important in medieval scholastic thought, nominalism is associated particularly with William of Occam.

Metaphysics :
1. the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
2.abstract theory with no basis in reality.

End-directed forms of causality, or purpose, is clearly an aspect of life and consciousness. The term "abstential" is supposed to pick out the object of purposeful behavior. — frank

Yes. That seems to be the meaning of Deacon's term "Absence" ; the pull of the future, so to speak. Apparently, only humans can imagine a non-existent future state, and then work to make it real. So the purpose of Purpose is to convert Absence (lack, want) into Presence (possession, fulfillment). :smile:

I think science is full of materialistic explanations of our human nature and it most certainly is testable and empirical. Take for example what we know of hormones. Hormones strongly effect how we feel and what we do. — Athena

Yes. Materialistic Science has learned a lot about human physiology, much of which which we share with our ape cousins, who are quite clever as animals go. But Human Nature, as a philosophical enterprise, is mostly about how humans differ from animals. For example, the age-old question of non-empirical Souls. If there is no such thing, how do we account for the gap in reasoning power, which, seems to be our only significant advantage over more instinctive creatures? Even apes have hands.

Based on empirical evidence, our physiological advantage seems to be rather minor. But in terms of evolutionary success, humans have created a whole new form of Evolution : world-conquering Culture, which progresses much faster than physical evolution. A bigger brain is a Quantitative edge in processing power. But a rational mind seems to give humans a Qualitative superiority. Yet, some think it's our Animal Nature, including irrational hormones, that holds us back morally. While others think it's our over-weening intellectual arrogance that gets us into trouble. Both seem to be involved in Human Nature. :smile:


The Gap -- The Science of What Separates Us from Other Animals : . . . psychologist Thomas Suddendorf provides a definitive account of the mental qualities that separate humans from other animals, as well as how these differences arose.
https://www.amazon.com/Gap-Science-Separates-Other-Animals/dp/0465030149

Just to clarify. I’m skeptical that human nature exists. That is, I’m doubtful that there is some universal trait that we all share, and that is immutable. I think this because nurture seems to affect all traits, thereby making all traits mutable. However, thinking of humans as having a nature may be useful to help us understand ourselves. It may be a useful fiction, at best. — Pinprick

I definitely think that too much generalisations about 'human nature' are not particularly helpful. — Jack Cummins

The human mind instinctively looks for common features (general traits) in its environment, as an aid to categorizing the relationships of parts to wholes. Without the short-cut of "chunking" categories, we would have to deal with each new person or thing like babies, who have never seen anything "like" it before. But, like all shortcuts, Generalizing from a few individuals to a whole group, can lead to Stereotyping (over-generalization). Classification allows us to pre-judge based on past experience. But, that same prejudice can lead us astray, if our sample is too small or biased by unique circumstances.

Assigning common traits to a class, based on limited experience with individuals, is a "useful fiction" for most purposes. But it can also result in Racism or Speciesism. So we probably should put our "Types" in quotes, to remind us that the rule-of-thumb may or may not apply in this particular case. Generalizations are always Approximations. The science of Sociology has a broader scope than Psychology, in that it attempts to understand Human-Nature-in-general rather than the peculiarities of individual humans. Hence, there is no need to deny the existence of "Human Nature", or "Race", as a crude concept, as long as we don't apply that abbreviated understanding in critical situations, where inaccuracies in prejudices can mislead us. Skepticism toward our own "truths" can help us avoid leaping to erroneous conclusions. :smile:

Generalizations and Stereotypes : When do generalizations move into stereotypes? Stereotypes are overgeneralizations; they often involve assuming a person has certain characteristics based on unfounded assumptions..
https://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2012/05/understanding-generalizations-and-stereotypes.html

As I have just said to Wayfarer I am in favour of a holistic model, or systems view of life. — Jack Cummins

Are you familiar with the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico? It's a think-tank and research center for Complex Adaptive Systems. And that includes humans. It consists of a variety of physical scientists, but their common approach to their subjects is Holism, rather than Reductionism. A more technical term for that kind of science is "Systems Theory".

You seem to be familiar with Fritjof Capra, and his book, The Systems View of Life. But a more recent advocate of non-reductive science is Stuart Kaufman. His 2016 book, Humanity in a Creative Universe, may be considered a technical treatise on Human Nature -- covering subjects like Free Will, and the Mind-Body problem. Like Capra, he is not afraid to risk his considerable scientific credentials, on taboo topics for reductive materialistic attitudes. And his book frequently crosses the line between hard science and soft philosophy. So, while it may be interesting for the philosophically inclined, some may criticize its forays into imagination and speculation -- to call it "fact free". And they may complain that Holism opens the door to Mysticsm. But, I'm willing to take that chance, in order to put human nature under the microscope. :smile:


Stuart Kauffman : We really did create a new science. It seems "fact free," as John Maynard Smith said, because we were finding not efficient cause laws, but kinds of what might be called just math or formal cause laws.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/scientific-seeker-stuart-kauffman-on-free-will-god-esp-and-other-mysteries/

Wiki: In physics, a virtual particle is a transient quantum fluctuation — jgill

Actually, in Physics there are many disparate definitions of fundamental Particles. And the bottom line is that "we don't know" what they are. "We" don't know, because "we" are materialists, who can't see anything but Atoms & Void. Where does invisible Energy fit in that worldview?

My thesis proposes that "everything in the universe reduces to Information (the power to enform). And some scientists have reached that same conclusion (It from Bit). For example, in the article below, the "traits" of particles, "change & mass", are not physical objects but meta-physical Information about dimensionless points. Once you grasp the notion that the foundation of Reality is immaterial, then the Enformationism thesis will begin to make sense. It will still be counter-intuitive, like Quantum Theory itself, but you will begin to "see" invisible Information at all levels of Reality. :nerd:

“What are the fundamental building blocks of the universe on its most fundamental scales?” — a more sophisticated phrasing of my question,“What is a particle?”
In the meantime, Engelhardt said, “‘We don’t know’ is the short answer.”

Given that everything in the universe reduces to particles, a question presents itself: What
are particles? The easy answer quickly shows itself to be unsatisfying. Namely, electrons, photons, quarks, and other “fundamental” particles supposedly lack substructure or physical extent. “We
basically think of a particle as a pointlike object,” . . . . and yet particles have distinct traits, such as charge and mass. How can a dimensionless point bear weight?
https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-a-particle-20201112/

Universal Information : similar to Energy, but also to Mind & Matter. It's omnipotential.

The writer queried my use of the term human nature, questioning whether it exists. . . . — Jack Cummins

Of course, Human Nature doesn't "exist" in a materialistic concrete sense. It's a generalization, and an abstraction. So, it's not a testable empirical "thing" to be studied by scientists. But it's certainly amenable to philosophical study. "The writer" must be a hard Materialist, who doesn't accept immaterial things, such as Minds, to be Real. For them, the only things that "exist" are Atoms & Void. But Unfortunately, speculations on generalizations & universals are always somebody's Opinion, not hard facts. What's yours? :smile:

According to Aristotle, the philosophical study of human nature itself originated with Socrates, who turned philosophy from study of the heavens to study of the human things. ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature

Wiki: In physics, a virtual particle is a transient quantum fluctuation
Admittedly, you did say "something similar" to spiritual energy, so that lets you off the hook. — jgill

Thanks, but I wasn't biting anyway. :wink:

Do virtual particles actually physically exist? : Thus virtual particles exist only in the mathematics of the model used to describe the measurements of real particles . To coin a word, virtual particles are particlemorphic , having a form like particle but not a particle.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185110/do-virtual-particles-actually-physically-exist
Note 1 -- Is an "unreal", "metaphysical" [my words] virtual particle similar to a Platonic Form?

Virtual Particle or Disturbance? : " . . .A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.. . ." https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/
Note 2 -- is a "disturbance in a field" similar to a "disturbance in the Force"? Is "The Force" something like Spiritual Energy?

Quantum Fluctuation : Quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing, as allowed by the Uncertainty Principle.
https://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm
Note 3 -- Some Cosmologists theorize that our world was created-out-of-nothing due to a Quantum Fluctuation. Does that sound like Magic to you? And you think I'm a Mystic?

Virtual : The definition of virtual is something that exists in the mind, exists in essence but not in fact or created by a computer. An example of virtual is an imaginary friend.
Note 4 -- Why did Physicists call those " transient disturbances" by the ghostly term "virtual"? Is a Virtual Particle like an imaginary friend? Do ghost-hunters search for "transient disturbances"? I'm not making this stuff up. I'm quoting the words of Atheist Physicists.
Note 5 -- Mundane natural "Information" exists in the Mind, and in Matter. Yes?
Note 6 -- In view of all this spooky scientific language, do you now agree that Quantum Theory is dabbling in Philosophy --- in Meta-physics? And getting dangerously close to Mysticism. :cool:

Spiritual energy is a quantum fluctuation? This is similar to ectoplasm? This sounds a bit like quantum mysticism. — jgill

No. That's not even close to what I said. I'm simply offering my opinion : that the phenomena ancient sages explained in terms of "Spirit" is now explained in terms of "Energy". But Energy can now be explained in terms of "Information" and "Enformation". Hence, Information can be a physical cause (verb -- "to enform"). But, before Shannon, that same word referred only to non-quantifiable meta-physical knowledge in the mind (noun -- "fact") . So now, most scientists think of "information" in quantifiable physical terms as "negentropy" (i.e energy). And they forget that it originally referred to qualitative Ideas in a Mind.

That's not "quantum mysticism", it's just Information Theory. But, since Information/Energy is an invisible Cause in the natural world, it serves the same causal function as ancient notions of Spirit, Soul, Chi, Ghosts, Ectoplasm. Since Atheists tend to be offended by such "forbidden" words, they try to pin the "Mystic" label on me --- like holding a silver cross to defend against a vampire. But I'm neither an Atheist, nor a Theist, nor a Vampire, nor a Mystic. So, I'm comfortable with whatever terminology suits the application. I think the next generation of informed people will be more familiar, and comfortable, with the dual roles of Information : Matter stuff, and Mind stuff. :nerd:


The mass-energy-information equivalence principle : https://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.5123794.

Information (quality) : noun. knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/information

Information (quantity) : Shannon defined the quantity of information produced by a source--for example, the quantity in a message--by a formula similar to the equation that defines thermodynamic entropy in physics.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/claude-e-shannon-founder/

Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. — Gnomon
You wrote this. Your definition. Your words. Verbatim. Please don't deny this, because even the reference is there that it was penned by you.
I assert that this definition includes both quantum mechanics and the reason and rationale behind witch burning. I proved it. Now it's your turn to prove I made a mistake in the proof. — god must be atheist

Ouch! It hurts when you throw my words back in my face. But, I cannot deny that I wrote those words. So, I stand by them. :joke:

However, where in those quoted words does it say anything about "witch burning" or "sheer fantasy", "disproved fiction" and "intentional fraud".. Show me any of those words in my post, and I'll admit that you have proven your false accusation. That's your "assertion" not mine. And ad hominem accusations are not philosophical proof of anything. Maybe you can create a syllogism that leads from belief in Mental "Phenomena" to human atrocities of Faith. That would only prove that your personal conception of Metaphysics is warped by your animus concerning Religion & Magic & Ghosts.

I'm not as gullible as you think. I have subscribed to Skeptical Enquirer and Skeptic magazine and Scientific American magazine for over 35 years. So, I know about "sheer fantasy", "disproved fiction" and "intentional fraud". And I know just enough about Quantum Physics to be dangerous . . . to Materialists and Spiritualists. FYI, here's the last line of my glossary definition of "Meta-Physics" : I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being). Can you find any "witch burning" in that quote?

I usually find your comments on this forum to be calm and rational. But you are completely missing the point of my comments on Quantum Theory and Philosophy. And your "witch burning" accusations sound more like fearful medieval villagers bearing torches. Are you going to accuse me of consorting with Satan next? Apparently, your faith in Materialism is strong. So, You are putting meanings in my words that are not in my mind. BTW, did you interpret "mind's eye" as the Hindu "third eye"? I was referring to Reason & Imagination, which can see things that are not. Do you think Einstein actually saw the world stretching as he rode on a light beam? :cool:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution." ___Einstein

Concepts in Metaphysics : Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Concepts_in_metaphysics
Note : how many of those categories are physical objects that can be studied under a microscope? And how many can you see with the "eye of the body"? Is Space-Time a perceivable material object or an invisible mental metaphor?

Putting words into someone's mouth: a logical fallacy? ... I've always been told that it is giving your opponents worst argument so that you can defeat it easily, ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ALogical_fallacy

Here's another quote for you to parse :
Enformationism : a worldview or belief system, grounded in the assumption that mundane Information, not Matter, is the basic substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be a successor to the 19th century paradigm of Materialism, and to the ancient worldview of Spiritualism.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html
Evidence from 21st century science follows . . . .

Hello. I was reading about the ideas of Multiverse and Block Universe and I got depressed. — Philosophuser

You probably got depressed because you were trying to view the space-time universe from a hypothetical eternal-infinite God's perspective, outside of physical reality. There is no "here" there. So you may have burned-out a few looping brain circuits, like a computer dividing by zero.

For Mathematicians though, including Physics theorists, their equations work both ways, in the sense that there is no arrow of time. Equations for most physical processes work both ways, except Entropy. Although mathematical physics works just as well in reverse, real physics is a one-way street.

So, for the rest of us, we intuitively know or feel that time has a single direction : from Past to Future, and that Change is the result. So, unless you are a mathematician, or a science-fiction writer, time travel and parallel worlds are non-sense. When static Block Time is overlaid on the evolving planet Earth, all sorts of paradoxical eddys are stirred-up. Ironically, philosophical thinkers often enjoy getting stoned on paradoxes.

And that includes yours truly. I have a theory that resolves the time paradoxes. But unless you are a glutton for punishment, I don't recommend "going there". But, if you do enjoy self-flagellation, just try to visualize an 11 dimension universe for a warm-up. Mathematics is not common sense, it's logic without words, and without time. :cool:

"For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” ___Einstein
But, for most of us, it's a comfortable illusion.

"Cypher: You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious". ___The Matrix1999.

Good point. However, should ectoplasm be detected and analyzed in a laboratory your perspective could have merit. — jgill

Ironically, something similar to "Ectoplasm" and "Spiritual Energy" has been detected and analyzed, not in chemical or biological labs, but in modern computers : Information Processors. However, it's not what psychics and mediums think it is. Computer data is Information, and Energy is enformation. It's the same fundamental stuff that "Virtual Particles" are made of. But it's not supernatural; it's not some ghostly goo, or green slime. It's merely the mundane mathematical relationship that powers Thermodynamics.

Religious believers were quick to pick-up on the parallels between Quantum Science and Spiritualism. But Atheist scientists are now getting on board, and writing books on Physics & Metaphysics, risking ridicule from their peers. Theists and Atheists can adapt "Information" to their disparate needs. But believing in Ectoplasm doesn't prove the existence of ghosts. :nerd:

Ectoplasm : (from the Greek ektos, meaning "outside", and plasma, meaning "something formed or molded") is a term used in spiritualism to denote a substance or spiritual energy "exteriorized" by physical mediums.

Could one of you, or anybody, explain why zero was a "troublesome" concept to integrate into science? Was the issue forced by the success of math in making predictions? — frank

Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea : https://www.amazon.com/s?k=zero&i=stripbooks&ref=nb_sb_noss

On the other hand you define metaphysics that allows interpretation of sub-particle activities to be of the same value and service to mankind, as witch burning and seances. THIS is why I object to your definition. Never mind my dogma. In my books the two are separate systems of thought, and one describes reality, the other does not. The two have no common things in their mechanisms. Yet your definition allows that. Therefore it is not a good definition, because it equates disparate, non-related elements in this world: solid, observed elements (QM) to another element that is sheer fantasy, disproved fiction and intentional fraud. — god must be atheist

How did you get those medieval notions from my definitions of Meta-Physics? I suspect that's your definition, and you are ignoring mine.

I understand your conventional position. If we were talking about "Scholastic Metaphysics", I might agree with you. But I'm talking about the unconventional notion of "Naturalized Metaphysics". It's based on cutting-edge Science and Philosophy. The hypothesis that everything, including Matter & Mind, consists of polymorphous Information, is a novel idea. And it challenges both the ancient notion of Materialism, and the current doctrine of Physicalism. So I don't expect it to become common knowledge until older scientists and philosophers die off. And I doubt that the credentialed scientists at the Santa Fe Institute (complex systems), who are studying the endless applications of Information, obtain their information from Seances. :joke:

Everything Must Go : Ladyman, Ross, et al.
https://www.amazon.com/Every-Thing-Must-Metaphysics-Naturalized/dp/0199573093

Naturalized Metaphysics : Every Thing Must Go argues that the only kind of metaphysics that can contribute to objective knowledge is one based specifically on contemporary science as it really is, and not on philosophers' a priori intuitions, common sense, or simplifications of science.
https://www.amazon.com/Every-Thing-Must-Metaphysics-Naturalized/dp/0199573093

One Funeral at a Time : “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-10/science-advances-one-funeral-at-a-time-the-latest-nobel-proves-it

Information and the Nature of Reality : From Physics to Metaphysics
https://www.amazon.com/Information-Nature-Reality-Metaphysics-Classics/dp/1107684536

From Matter to Life -- Information and Causality :
https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Life-Information-Causality/dp/1107150531

What point is Deacon trying to make in regard to "absentials"? — apokrisis

Power of Absence : And I view his “Absence” as a religiously neutral term for what used to be known as incorporeal “Spirit”.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page17.html

but it does not come to terms with what intentionality is. — Wayfarer

After all his astute reasoning on "Consciousness", he concluded that it is an "introspective illusion". But even "illusions" are mental states, and "introspection" has no visual organ.

Apparently, "Intention" is also illusory. I agree with most of his reasoning, except for his vain attempt to remain within the margins of Materialism, while dealing with ethereal Mental Abstractions. In his favor though, he tries to avoid the extreme stance of Reductive Materialism, which denies the reality of all Qualia --- the "stuff" that makes life worth living.

Materialist philosophers are all over the map in their contortions around the ancient notion of a Conscious Soul. Since, on principle, they eliminate an immaterial Soul as a possible candidate for the seat of Consciousness and Intention, they are still waiting for empirical science to find a viable alternative. In my own thesis, I propose an alternative that is real but not physical. In deference to materialist sensibilities, I call it "the Self", but define it in terms of Universal Information. It performs the same function as a "common sense" Soul, but naturally emerges instead of being divinely added to a body. It's a mental Self-Image that serves as the perspective point for all behaviors --- including the Intentional Stance. :smile:



Human consciousness is the same, says Dennett. "It's the brain's 'user illusion' of itself,"

Eliminative Materialism : In the context of materialist understandings of psychology, eliminativism stands in opposition to reductive materialism which argues that mental states as conventionally understood do exist, and that they directly correspond to the physical state of the nervous system.An intermediate position is revisionary materialism, which will often argue that the mental state in question will prove to be somewhat reducible to physical phenomena—with some changes needed to the common sense concept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism

Specifically so he could dispose of the inconvenient truth of intentionality. He fails. See two current threads on Dennett. — Wayfarer

Yes. He was like those who deny the existence of immaterial Minds, even as they use their abstract reasoning to produce imaginary reasons why there is no such thing as Consciousness or Soul. But he made a good point about "aboutness". :smile:


Dennett constantly speaks of the "aboutness" of intentionality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_stance

But arent those years of hyper-materialism also how we arrived at the concepts of say, intention, in the first place? — frank

No. Intention as the cause of goal-oriented human behavior was defined long before the anti-religious hyper-materialism emerged to disentangle Science from Catholic Hegemony. :smile:

Note -- Daniel Dennett was talking about "aboutness" when he coined the concept of "intentional stance"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_stance

Intention : In philosophy, intentionality is the power of minds and mental states to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/

Intention : For Aristotle, orexis or desire is the cause of all animal motion, including human motion. Prohairesis is a deliberate desire for the means to an end. It is a principle of action peculiar to mature human beings capable of deliberating, as it is the intention which is the result of deliberation.
https://dlib.bc.edu/islandora/object/bc-ir%3A101290

objectionable for one reason and one reason only. You take a term that has been given some kind of aura, that is pervasive in its usage. Then you give it a very restrictive meaning, — god must be atheist

Do you think it's "objectionable" for a philosopher to disambiguate an ancient term with centuries of misleading accretions? I doubt that precision-of-definition is what you find objectionable. Instead, it's the materialist dogma that dismisses any hint of preternatural phenomena. Yet my definition says that Meta-physical Information (ideas, meanings, concepts) is indeed non-physical, but is completely Natural. Aristotle apparently thought it was an important distinction, even though he didn't give it a name. Personally, I think the name "Meta-physics" is descriptive & apt. So it shouldn't be offensive to anyone who acknowledges Ari's division of Science into the physical (volume 1) and the non-physical (vol 2) aspects of Natural Reality.
* Note 1 -- Energy is a mysterious & immaterial Ontological Cause that creates (enforms) & transforms tangible Matter. Yet Cause & Effect are erroneously lumped together under the heading of "Physics". But, for the purposes of my thesis, and Aristotle's, Causes are Meta-Physical. (Hume)
* "All of our experiences in life can be attributed to Energy. Metaphysical causes are a result of the energy manifesting its self as a physical outcome."
https://www.isygrigg.com/metaphysical-causes/

* Aristotle divided the theoretical sciences into three groups: physics, mathematics, and theology. He does, however, recognize the branch of philosophy now called metaphysics: he calls it “first philosophy” and defines it as the discipline that studies “being as being.” ...
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aristotle/Physics-and-metaphysics
* Note 2 -- In my thesis, I combine all of the non-physical groups under the heading of Meta-Physics. But, Information actually manifests in two forms : material and mental. If you are not familiar with cutting edge Information Theory, that statement may sound "objectionable". But the thesis attempts to ease the mental transition from either/or Materialism to both/and Enformationism.

The last part of my glossary definition says : "5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being)."

So... QM is full of instances of things visible only with our minds' eyes. True. Then what?
Where is the insight in this? What is the usefulness of stating this? — god must be atheist

The answer to your questions is in the Enformationism thesis. I give many examples to show how Information (e.g. Energy) can be both physical (matter) and non-physical (mind). It's the Prime Substance of our world. That "insight" is my minor contribution to the progress of philosophy. The "usefulness" of that insight may result in the reconciliation between estranged Philosophy & Science.

Prime Substance : The philosophical term ‘substance’ corresponds to the Greek ousia, which means ‘being’, transmitted via the Latin substantia, which means ‘something that stands under or grounds things’. . . .
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
Prime matter is matter with no substantial form of its own
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism
* Note 3 -- Aristotle's "Prime Substance" and Spinoza's "Universal Substance" are what I call "Enformation" -- the power to give form to the formless. One aspect is "Energy".

Energy :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

You, Gnomon, were kind enough to provide your own definition. It is not a faulty definition, since no consensus has been reached. But it is a rather useless definition, because it allows you to claim the presence of metaphysics in quantum mechaincs. Per your definition, it is perfectly valid. However, many people immediately conjure concepts of what metaphysics are, and disregard your defintion, and they therefore reject your claim. — god must be atheist

Isn't that how philosophy is done : first define your terms, then make your argument? I was forced to define the concept of "non-physical" or "virtual" reality, precisely because it's a debatable topic. Besides, those other definitions have no bearing on my argument. If my definition is not faulty, and it is pertinent to my topic, why call it "useless"? I am simply using the literal meaning of the word, beyond physical nature, instead of the supernatural accretions over the years. Those who think of Metaphysics as supernatural may "disregard" my definition. But they can't thereby claim to "defeat" my argument. My thesis stands or falls on its own definitions, not irrelevant notions. Metaphysics : the abstract side of reality.

Apparently, Aristotle thought "beyond-physics" was an important aspect of reality, because he devoted a whole volume to topics that didn't fit into the category of Physical Science. In volume 2, he was no longer discussing "facts" of physical reality, but human ideas or opinions about Reality. He even referred to it as "First Philosophy". Not merely after Physics, but prior to Physics in philosophical importance. When Quantum Physics refers to "Virtual" particles, are they materially real, or merely a not-yet-real (potential) aspect of "being as being"? Ghost particles, Entanglement, Tunneling , Spooky-action-at-a-distance. Do you deny that Quantum Physics is dabbling in Philosophy?

If you don't like my application of "Metaphysics" to Quantum Physics, just substitute "Philosophy" in its place. Is that still a "useless" definition for a thread entitled : "Quantum Physics and Philosophy"? What does philosophy study, if not the non-physical abstract qualities of human experience? One of those qualities is the non-physical property we call "Mind". Do you, like Darkneos, deny the existence of Minds, just because they can't be examined under a microscope? Is non-physical "Mind" (below) a "useless definition"? :nerd:


How does Aristotle define metaphysics? :
What is known to us as metaphysics is what Aristotle called "first philosophy." Metaphysics involves a study of the universal principles of being, the abstract qualities of existence itself. Perhaps the starting point of Aristotle's metaphysics is his rejection of Plato's Theory of Forms.
https://www.sparknotes.com/biography/aristotle/section7/

Virtual : The definition of virtual is something that exists in the mind, exists in essence but not in fact or created by a computer. An example of virtual is an imaginary friend. An example of virtual is a world created by a computer video game.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/virtual

Mind : (in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.: the processes of the human mind. ...
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mind

These statements have no literal meaning. They are very much like all religious statements, they are a type of imaginative poetry. — EricH

I have no training in Physics, beyond 101 courses, and 50 years of reading science. So, I am aware that, officially, the science of Physics does not concern itself with "meaning". But this is a Philosophy forum, and that discipline does concern itself with meaning and human values. When the OP titled this thread, he, perhaps unwittingly, included the Search for Meaning in the topic. And that's what got my attention. Modern Philosophy is inherently Metaphysical, because Modern Science took on the task of understanding the physical world, and left the non-physical topics for feckless philosophers to debate endlessly, while science actually made progress on many fronts.

Ironically, three big steps in that progression of knowledge have raised embarrassing questions about the Materialist assumptions that physics, since Aristotle, was based on. That quantum leap opened doors for Philosophical progress, which were closed since Galileo. Physics asks specific questions about Particular things, and reasons by reductive analysis. Philosophy though, asks general questions about Universals, and reasons by synthetic theories. Hence, when empirical scientists produce General theories about Universals, such as Evolution and Theories of Everything, they are inadvertently doing philosophy.

Those 20th century diversions into philosophy were Quantum Physics, Systems Theory, and Information Theory. Together, they have revealed that the foundations of Reality are not Material, but Mathematical, Holistic & Informational. The 21st century role of Leucippus' "Atom" is now filled by a "bit" of Information, as noted above. The "queer" worldview painted by those new fields of study has been quickly adopted by Theologians, New Agers, and Mystics. Hence, it has been rejected by those who favor the ancient theory of Materialism. Yet, although I fit in none of those categories, I have accepted the philosophical implications of 21st century Science, that still make some philosophers uncomfortable. I didn't intend to discomfit the OP with a 21st century worldview. But I was not completely surprised at his closed-minded reception. :joke:


Philosophy : (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom') is the study of general and fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. ... Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.

The Meaning of Life : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life-meaning/

Meta-Physics : [ Physicist, Cosmologist, Astrobiologist ] Paul Davies makes a provocative claim. ''The new physics,'' he writes, ''has overturned so many commonsense notions of space, time and matter that no serious religious thinker can ignore it.''
https://www.csmonitor.com/1983/1104/110407.html

Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics : Many scientists regard mass and energy as the primary currency of nature. In recent years, however, the concept of information has gained importance. Why? In this book, eminent scientists, philosophers and theologians chart various aspects of information, from quantum information to biological and digital information, in order to understand how nature works. Beginning with an historical treatment of the topic, the book also examines physical and biological approaches to information, and its philosophical, theological and ethical implications.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Information_and_the_Nature_of_Reality.html?id=0k6oQq8lN-YC

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."
___Richard Feynman

So instead of arguing with Gnomon, I suggest that whoever is interested in carrying on a meaningful conversation, must create a different defintion from Gnomon's for "MP". — god must be atheist

Which do you prefer : the simple vernacular definition of MP, or the various abstruse mathematical definitions? I post links to the definitions used by physicists. But most viewers don't click the links. So they are not aware that "Gnomon's definition" is completely compatible with modern quantum physics. My ad hoc disambiguation definition above is intended to make a clear distinction between the vernacular definition and the technical definition, in terms that are easy to understand. Besides, even Newton's physics was grounded on supernatural assumptions : God was an axiom. The whole point of "Gnomon's definition" is to disambiguate a murky concept. :nerd:

Newton’s Metaphysics of Space as God’s Emanative Effect : https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00016-014-0142-8

I could be mistaken, but I believe the sensations you will experience from these experiments are the result of gravity acting on your arms (#1) or your whole body (#2) — EricH

Newton's gravity was imagined as a pulling force, that was different from all other forces, which push. Einstein's gravity is not a "force", so you can't sense it directly. Instead, you "feel" the effects of that geometric change of direction on your body. For example, technically, the centrifugal "force" you feel when whirling in circles, is not gravity, but internal stresses due to non-straight-line motion. Modern, Einsteinian Physics is counter-intuitive, because much of it is Meta-physical. :cool:


Feeling of Gravity : Locally you cannot feel a gravitational field. In ordinary life, as you walk across the earth, you don't feel gravity. What you feel is the mechanical stresses that are exerted by the earth against your feet, and then transmitted throughout your body.
https://www.av8n.com/physics/gravity-perception.htm

Is this how everyone understands what metaphysics is? — god must be atheist

No. The common vernacular definition of "metaphysics" is "supernatural". But that is not the philosophical definition, nor how I use the term in my thesis. The metaphysical Mind is a product of natural evolution, but it is not an empirical object, or a tangle of neurons. Instead, the Mind is the function of the brain. It's what brains do --- a goal-directed activity. It can't be studied under a microscope, only by rational inference from behavior. The metaphysical Mind is not physical, but it is Real and Natural. :smile:


Metaphysics : Derived from the Greek meta ta physika ("after the things of nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. As such, it is concerned with explaining the features of reality that exist beyond the physical world and our immediate senses. ...
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html

Function : kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists; role.

Physics & Metaphysics :
Two sides of the same coin we call Reality. When we look for matters of fact, we see physics. But when we search for meaning, we find meta-physics. A mental flip is required to view the other side. And imagination is necessary to see both at the same time.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

So...is gravity meta-physics? It is very real to me. And yet it is not something you can see, touch, smell or taste. — god must be atheist

Yes. As indicated in some my links above, modern Quantum Physics has crossed the line between absolute Newtonian physics, and relative Einsteinian physics. Your confusion is understandable, because the traditional definition of "Metaphysics" referred to "spiritual" concepts instead of physical percepts. Now, that formerly-clear distinction is blurred. For example, a quantum particle is believed to do something only ghosts could do before : pass through solid objects (quantum tunneling).

Moreover, the notion of "Superposition" would have been characterized as "Supernatural" by Newton. The current ambiguity of the distinction between Physics & Metaphysics, is why I chose to define them in a new way in my thesis : "Physics is what you perceive with your physical senses, and Metaphysics is what you conceive with your non-physical Mind" (mind is an immaterial process, not a material object). There's more discussion of that notion in my blog. :nerd:

Quantum Metaphysics : The line between metaphysics and physics is often blurry, but as a rough guide, one can think of a theory's metaphysics as those foundational assumptions made in its interpretation that are not usually directly tested in experiment.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-70626-7_119

Particles Walk Through Walls While Physicists Watch : https://www.livescience.com/20380-particles-quantum-tunneling-timing.html

Supernatural Entanglement : https://oss.adm.ntu.edu.sg/bleow001/supernatural-entanglement/

I am not saying metaphysics is nonsense. I say that the definition given renders it nonsense.
I have no clue what metaphysics is. It is not defined unambiguously. I can't deal with that. — god must be atheist

I'll try to disambiguate it for you. Are abstract ideas in the mind physical? If not, what are they? Is gravity a physical object, or a geometric warping of empty space? Is "Geometry" physical & empirical. or an abstract & mental concept? Ideas & concepts are literally meta-(beyond)-physics. :smile:

Abstractions : something which exists only as an idea --- Ideal.

Metaphysics : the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

Is Math Metaphysical? : Math is not physical (composed of matter/energy), though all physical things seem to conform to it.
http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/24527

Metaphysical Geometry : Thus, we believe and we can show that metaphysical truths, which are entirely independent of the concepts of god, creation, divine, etc. ... In other words, geometry is the reflection of intelligible truths in the plane of human mind which can understand things only in terms of the conditions of time and space.
https://tomajjavidtash.com/2016/03/13/metaphysics-geometry/

So-called modern theology would do well to return to the understandings of the founders of Christianity. They (the Patristic fathers) were pretty smart fellows and were emphatically not the founders of much modern fundamentalist nonsense and "modern" theology. — tim wood

I'm not so sure that the "Patristic Fathers" made more sense than later Theologians. But, since the "early founders" lived prior to the Imperial Roman Church, they only had one big problem to deal with : the kingdom didn't come with power & glory in the lifetimes of his hearers, as Jesus told his followers, in no uncertain terms. When their leader died, they were shocked by that unexpected turn-of-events. Nevertheless, the faithful waited expectantly for that great historical turn-around. But as time went by, with imperious Romans still in charge, no renewed Jewish kingdom, and after most early Christians had died, some began to doubt Jesus' bold words.

So Paul, in order to defend Jesus from implications of failed promises & prophecies, began a process of reinterpreting those messianic prophecies to relocate the kingdom in space & time --- to Heaven, and in some unspecified future. Paul and most other "Christian Fathers", never saw Jesus in the flesh. But their faith was strong, so they simply spiritualized the literal worldly concepts of "Messiah" and "Kingdom". Hence, for several centuries, they argued over various interpretations of the nature of both the Messiah and the Kingdom. This was a period of doctrinal chaos, with contradictory notions of Jesus' divinity, and of the long-prophesied Restoration of the Jewish Kingdom.

Finally, when Emperor Constantine chose Christianity as the official Imperial religion, he had to put his foot down, and standardize its official doctrine. That required eliminating competing heresies, and centralizing authority. The result was what we now call the Holy Roman (not Jewish) Catholic Church (not kingdom). And it was the beginning of officially sanctioned "modern" Theology. Unfortunately, the unity of doctrine and centrality of authority eventually began to fall-apart, and those early heresies have raised their heads again in our times, as "fundamentalist nonsense". :cool:


And he said to them, "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power."
___Mark 9:1

13. Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. 14. For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.
___1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

Early Church heresies : https://www.ucg.org/beyond-today/beyond-today-magazine/what-happened-to-the-beliefs-of-the-early-church

Patristic Fathers :
Patristics, is a branch of theological study of the most prominent writings of the pastors and theologians of the Church from the end of the Apostolic period until the beginning of the Medieval period. The time span of the Patristic period is generally considered to be about AD 100 (after the death of John, the last living apostle) until about AD 604 (when Gregory the Great died after serving in the the bishopric of Rome, in a life of ministry that tended to lock into place the basic elements of the Medieval Church, including the consolidation of ecclesiastical power in the church of Rome, and the ascendancy of the Roman bishop, who would come to be called the “pope”).
https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/patristics.html

For all yes/no questions that are not gibberish (i.e. are reasonable and coherent), there has to be an answer, right? — dimension72

"Yes/No" questions are assuming that there are either Heads or Tails, but not two sides of the same coin.

I heard it said that solipsism can't be refuted because it's logically impeccable, but does that make it true? — Darkneos

Solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds : A modern philosopher cannot evade solipsism under the Cartesian picture of consciousness without accepting the function attributed to God by Descartes (something few modern philosophers are willing to do).
https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/

Time is real if and only if it's a an aspect of reality itself — TheMadFool

"Time" is real, in the sense that the concept exists in human imagination, within the context of Reality. But Time is not out-there in physical 3D space. It exists only in the fourth dimension of Mind-space. What is "out there" in reality is meta-physical Change. And Time is simply an artificial measurement system for recording Changes in memory. So, whether Time is Real or Imaginary depends on how inclusive your definition of Reality is. Does it include immaterial Minds? Is your personal mind "an aspect of reality"? Dude, are you real?? :joke:

The Illusion of Time : To many physicists, while we experience time as psychologically real, time is not fundamentally real. At the deepest foundations of nature, time is not a primitive, irreducible element or concept required to construct reality. The idea that time is not real is counterintuitive.
https://www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html

Mindspace : The residence of one's state of dudeness, or the place in which this essence is located.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mindspace

3) Physics can never show "WHY" Reality behaves as it does until we understand its inherent flaws. — Chris1952Engineer

Physics asks "how" Nature works, and does not attempt to answer "why" questions. That is the purview of Metaphysics and Philosophy. So, the study of physics is not so much "flawed", as it is self-limited. :smile:

Science Categories : Aristotle divided the theoretical sciences into three groups:physics, mathematics, and theology. { Note -- theology is now known as meta-physics }
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aristotle/Physics-and-metaphysics

I've just finished reading biblical philosophy. Is modern theology still trying to prove the existence of God by reason? — guanyun

Yes. Even theologians are uncomfortable with irrational "blind faith" as the only evidence for their deity of choice. So, eight centuries later, some are still refining Aquina's Five Ways of proving the existence of God by philosophical reasoning.

But a recent book took a novel approach to that perennial question. Instead of using ordinary verbal logic -- where definitions may vary -- to prove that belief in God is reasonable, Steven Unwin used the abstract logic of mathematical statistics, the science of probabilities. Yet he chose to use the Bayesian Probability technique, which was originally intended to gauge the level of confidence in uncertain scientific conclusions. In other words, it takes into account the Subjective aspect of Reasoning and of Confidence as expressed in percentages.

First though, Unwin tried to define the general concept of divinity as specifically as possible. His topic is the Bible God of Christianity, not necessarily the abstract Yahweh of Judaism, or the austere Allah of Islam. So, when faith is expressed in numbers, instead of words, it may give the impression of scientific accuracy and rational validity. Check it out, and see what you think. :smile:

The Probability of God : https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000Q9IVT2/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

The Odds of God : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page60.html

Calculating God : Thus, all such scientistic theologies are compelling only to those who already believe. Religious faith depends on a host of social, psychological and emotional factors that have little or nothing to do with probabilities, evidence and logic. This is faith’s inescapable weakness. It is also, undeniably, its greatest power.
https://michaelshermer.com/sciam-columns/gods-number-is-up/

I heard it said that solipsism can't be refuted because it's logically impeccable, but does that make it true? — Darkneos

How's this for logic? Prejudice blocks our minds from "an area we have yet to consider." :cool:

Of Superposition and Solipsism : Indeed, an answer to the mind-body problem might come from an area we have yet to consider.
https://prizedwriting.ucdavis.edu/superposition-and-solipsism-survey-quantum-mechanical-approaches-addressing-%E2%80%9C-hard-problem%E2%80%9D

↪Gnomon
It's not really a prejudice when it's a known "fact" that metaphysics is a useless branch of philosophy. — Darkneos

Sounds like intolerant prejudice to me. :smile:

↪Gnomon
SO is heaven. — Banno

So Heaven also needs Humanism? :smile:

"Hell is other people" ___Sartre
You'd hypothesize that one of most history's most revered Existentialists would confer a greater value onto the material subject of his philosophy. — Aryamoy Mitra

Uh, no. I have no hypothesis. Just a tongue-in-cheek quote. :joke:

I just don't see doubting as a valid form of argument because the same thing can be done right back to you to the point that no one really gets anywhere. Once you start doubting the senses then you don't really get to claim science for support for whatever claim you have. — Darkneos

I never said that I doubt the physical senses or the physical world. That notion is in your imagination. My arguments have nothing to do with doubting the validity of physical sciences. Your prejudice against Metaphysics seems to be the source of your erroneous attributions.

I enjoy discussing both Physics (science) and Metaphysics (philosophy). But we seem to be speaking different languages. I am especially interested in the topic of this thread : Quantum Physics and Philosophy. I'm not qualified to discuss the technical or mathematical topics of Quantum Theory, but I am generally familiar with the philosophical issues, such as Quantum Information, Ontology of quantum states, quantum state realism, the Measurement Problem, Entanglement-nonlocality-nonseparability. These are Metaphysical questions. As the quote below says, I see these issues as "a resource to be developed", not a problem to wish away. :smile:


Quantum Philosophy : Quantum mechanics has not only given rise to interpretational conundrums; it has given rise to new concepts in computing and in information theory. Quantum information theory is the study of the possibilities for information processing and transmission opened up by quantum theory. This has given rise to a different perspective on quantum theory, one on which, as Bub (2000, 597) put it, “the puzzling features of quantum mechanics are seen as a resource to be developed rather than a problem to be solved”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-issues/

or just metaphysical relation or metaphysical transcendence is a very significant part of trying to understand much of philosophy. — magritte

The Metaphysics of Causation : What must a world be like, to host causal relations?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/